Long Landing Approved

[Charles Talleyrand]

I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
runway.
Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).

Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

-Charles Talleyrand

P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.

P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
but with a 20 mph wind ....

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
> runway.
> Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
> runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
> overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>
> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.
>

Make sure the tower knows what your intentions are. There's no legal
problem in any case, but you may surprise him and screw up his plans for
other traffic.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 2 Oct 2006 23:11:05 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand" >
wrote:

>I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
>runway.
>Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
>runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
>overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>
>Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
>and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
>I just want to know if there is a legal problem.
>
>-Charles Talleyrand
>
>P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
>feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
>any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
>1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.
>
>P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
>sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
>but with a 20 mph wind ....


No problem at all. Just let the tower know what you are doing. I
frequently do that at KBGR when they are landing 15. GA parking is at the
other end.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Roy Smith]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
> runway.
> Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
> runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
> overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>
> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

Perfectly legal. That's exactly what the tower has in mind when they say
"long landing approved".

[Stubby]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
>> I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
>> runway.
>> Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
>> runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
>> overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>>
>> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
>> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
>> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.
>
> Perfectly legal. That's exactly what the tower has in mind when they say
> "long landing approved".

Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor told
me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3 landing
per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice and had to
break off. But it was a good idea.]

[Peter R.]

Charles Talleyrand > wrote:

> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.

I do this all the time at Syracuse, NY. The runway is 9,500 feet long and
my T-hangar is probably another 1,000 feet past the end of runway 28
(normally the main runway).

When I am landing rwy 28 I will request a long landing, which is almost
always approved (unless an airliner is breathing down my back), and when I
land on rwy 10 I practice my short field landings. :)

--
Peter

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Stubby > said:
>Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor told
>me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3 landing
>per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice and had to

Good old instructor tricks. I was having problems learning to land on the
center line, so my instructor took me to a parachute center where he flew
jumpers. The runway was 1600 feet long and barely wider than my main
gear. Yeah, I landed on the center of that, but that also meant that I
landed with my left gear lined up with the edge of the runway. We went
back to KROC where I landed with my left wing overhanging the left edge of
the runway on a 150 foot wide runway. Not exactly what he'd hoped.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I'll ask you plainly: Do you believe in an infallible power?"
"You mean like Google?" - Satch, Get Fuzzy.

[Michelle P]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
> runway.
> Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
> runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
> overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>
> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.
>
> -Charles Talleyrand
>
> P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
> feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
> any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
> 1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.
>
> P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
> sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
> but with a 20 mph wind ....
>
There is no problem with this. We do it all the time. If we land on 28R
or 10L at BOI. We land long. We can move faster in the air than on the
ground. This reduces our taxi time and our time in ATC's hands. A Win
Win. 28L or 10R we land on the numbers. There are many air carriers here
and Southwest is know for coming in hot... I was told to keep up the
speed. I was doing about 120. I asked if 160 would keep us ahead of the
SW 737. The controller laughed and replied you are going to need another
100 knots. He is doing 250.

Michelle

[Bob Chilcoat]

When I got (and took) the chance to land at Newark (EWR) last year, I asked
to land long when I was assigned 4R so that I wouldn't have to taxi two
miles to the north end of the field where I needed to park. Tower said
"long landing approved, but be aware that you have an Airbus on a six-mile
final behind you". After I touched down Tower asked me to "Please expedite
your exit from the runway at high-speed taxiway Lima", which I did at around
50 knots. Tower then thanked me for expediting my departure, because the
Airbus was "now on a two-mile final". I hate to think what it would have
cost if I had made the Airbus go around.

On reflection, I'm sort of sorry now that I did land long. It would have
been fun taxiing up the field with the big boys. I can imagine passengers
looking out and seeing my little Archer puttering along. "Huh?!"

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
> runway.
> Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
> runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
> overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>
> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.
>
> -Charles Talleyrand
>
> P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
> feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
> any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
> 1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.
>
> P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
> sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
> but with a 20 mph wind ....
>

[Stubby]

I've heard that going around can cost the entire profit from a typical
scheduled flight. But that may be just a rumor.


Bob Chilcoat wrote:
> When I got (and took) the chance to land at Newark (EWR) last year, I asked
> to land long when I was assigned 4R so that I wouldn't have to taxi two
> miles to the north end of the field where I needed to park. Tower said
> "long landing approved, but be aware that you have an Airbus on a six-mile
> final behind you". After I touched down Tower asked me to "Please expedite
> your exit from the runway at high-speed taxiway Lima", which I did at around
> 50 knots. Tower then thanked me for expediting my departure, because the
> Airbus was "now on a two-mile final". I hate to think what it would have
> cost if I had made the Airbus go around.
>
> On reflection, I'm sort of sorry now that I did land long. It would have
> been fun taxiing up the field with the big boys. I can imagine passengers
> looking out and seeing my little Archer puttering along. "Huh?!"
>

[Jon Kraus]

>
> Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor told
> me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3 landing
> per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice and had to
> break off. But it was a good idea.]

So you were flying in the clouds (picking up some ice) before you
learned to land? Interesting, please tell us more...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

[Stubby]

Not in the clouds.

Jon Kraus wrote:
>>
>> Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor told
>> me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3
>> landing per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice
>> and had to break off. But it was a good idea.]
>
> So you were flying in the clouds (picking up some ice) before you
> learned to land? Interesting, please tell us more...
>
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 4443H @ UMP

[Jon Kraus]

Freezing rain then?

Stubby wrote:
> Not in the clouds.
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Years ago I was having trouble learning to land. The instructor
>>> told me to head for the airport with a 10,000 ft. "You can get in 3
>>> landing per pass." [As it turned out we started picking up some ice
>>> and had to break off. But it was a good idea.]
>>
>>
>> So you were flying in the clouds (picking up some ice) before you
>> learned to land? Interesting, please tell us more...
>>
>> Jon Kraus
>> '79 Mooney 201
>> 4443H @ UMP

[Dave S]

One of my buddies flys shrimp spotting at Salt Lake Utah.. he ROUTINELY
is offered "close in base, long landing approved" without asking when
they hear him check in (they know his voice). In his case, it saves a 2
mile taxi, and expedites flow because he can shoehorn inti the flow and
land beyond the wake turbulence of the approach zone. At a towered
field, the main issue is that you and the tower know what the plan is
and are on the same page.


The pilot is responsible for safe approach and landing, wether short or
long..

In part 91 ops as long as you operate within the limitations of the
aircraft, there is no legal problem. If you have an accident, then there
IS a legal problem in most cases.

Dave

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a Cessna 150. My hanger is at the far end of the 11,000 foot
> runway.
> Our tower routinely offers landings with "long landing approved". Our
> runway has distance remaining markers (and about 1,000 feet of paved
> overrun space if the first 11,000 were not enough).
>
> Is there any reason I cannot fly over the first 9,000 feet of runway
> and land on the remaining 2,000 feet? The plane and pilot are capable,
> I just want to know if there is a legal problem.
>
> -Charles Talleyrand
>
> P.S. Yes, I've tried. It's very easy to put the plane down in 2,000
> feet, especially since there are no obstacles on the glideslope. With
> any headwind I'm stopped within 1000 feet. And there is that
> 1,000 feet of overrun, which is unneeded but nice to have.
>
> P.S. S. We have no crosswind runway. Sometimes I wish one could land
> sideways on our huge piece of pavement. It's not quite wide enough,
> but with a 20 mph wind ....
>

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:30:14 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Perfectly legal. That's exactly what the tower has in mind when they say
>"long landing approved".

When I am listening to the PSM tower, I often hear 'cleared for the
option'. I assume that the tower is responding to a request (which I
didn't hear) for just such an action--touch & go, landing long, etc.
Why doesn't the tower actually repeat what is approved?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Cubdriver wrote:
> When I am listening to the PSM tower, I often hear 'cleared for the
> option'. I assume that the tower is responding to a request (which I
> didn't hear) for just such an action--touch & go, landing long, etc.
> Why doesn't the tower actually repeat what is approved?

They just did, as what you heard means only one thing.

The "Pilot/Controller Glossary" defines "Option Approach", and AIM
4-3-22 describes it in detail.

"Option" would not include a long landing.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford.net> wrote in message
...
>
> When I am listening to the PSM tower, I often hear 'cleared for the
> option'. I assume that the tower is responding to a request (which I
> didn't hear) for just such an action--touch & go, landing long, etc.
> Why doesn't the tower actually repeat what is approved?
>

To save time. "Cleared for the option" is standard phraseology, to actually
repeat what is approved would mean saying, "cleared for touch-and-go or
missed approach or low approach or stop-and-go or full stop landing". A
long landing is not included.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
>
> I fly a Champ, and the controller might reasonably expect a
> relatively short landing from me. How much of the runway
> can I use if I haven't specifically been given approval for
> a long landing?
>

All of it.